Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dopey Dick the Pink Whale


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. The sources provided by the keep !voters have been questioned and largely rejected by the consensus of participants. Consensus is that this subject does not warrant a separate article. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Dopey Dick the Pink Whale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prodded with "No evidence this passes GNG/NFILM. BEFORE fails to find any coverage. The cited source is just a passing mention.". PROD removed with the request for AFD, so here we go. Please note that the cited The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons (I used the newer edition from 2009) only mentions the subject in passing, in a list of Woody Woodpecker animations, and doesn't discuss the topic at all. The other cited source is a website of dubious reliability which also does not contain any discussion of this topic other than just listing it. I suggest redirecting to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography and doing the same with dozens of similar catalogue-like entries listed there that have no need for a stand-alone article (failing GNG/NFILM/etc.) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - See also Woody Woodpecker filmography and Adaptations of Moby-Dick. Do we have such a modern bias that we are not going to have the Woody Woodpecker cartoons? But besides that, in the quick google search I did, it was not hard to at least find references related comparing to Moby Dick. For example -   . And this 1957 cartoon still is shown - just for fun, here's a link showing that it was on television in the UK back in 1990 . .- jc37 08:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first two links have just one sentence passing mention about this cartoon (that fails WP:SIGCOV). The other is a blog so it is simply irrelevant (not reliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. We generally include notable cartoon shorts, and this clearly falls into this category. RomanSpa (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE, try again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. There is nothing in the article that indicates it meets GNG from my readings. jc37 suggested few sources, but Piotrus negatively scrutinized them. So far, nobody has countered that argumentation. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Covered in books about Woody and Walter Lantz Donald D23   talk to me  17:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Donaldd23 Which books? Please name them here, with a page range. Google Books or IA links would be a nice bonus. Thanks! PS. If by "Walter Lantz" you mean "The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia", it's not a book but a webpage of unclear reliability (no 'about', no information on authors, has a disclaimer "This is an unofficial website."), and the coverage is just a catalogue entry (name, date, credits, etc.) that fails SIGCOV. As was already noted above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. –– FormalDude  talk  01:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography per nom as WP:ATD-R. Not independently notable (fails GNG and WP:NFILM), but belongs to a notable collection covered by the filmography page. Lots of the other shorts seem to lack coverage for stand alone articles as well. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.